Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Will Halo come back?

OP Zancuran

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 19
  4. 20
  5. ...
  6. 21
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
Change is good if done right and innovating properly can make things great!
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
I dunno, the MCC sold pretty well for a collection of old games. It has 4 different styles of gameplay (okay if you want to classify gameplay by classic Halo vs nu-Halo, then it has 2 styles, but I'm sure CE purists, H2 elitists, and H3 dude bros would argue that they are very different).

Also, your line about CS is so full of crap. PC players like change just as much as anybody else, but they want it done right. They know what the game is and that the way the game is played is the selling factor, so they want the game to be similar to previous CS games, while still being new and refreshing. Hence all of the new weapon additions and maps that weren't in CS 1.6 or CS:S. Similar change can be accomplished with Halo, and it would still be Halo. As it is, most of the changes in Halo 5 seem to be reactionary changes that don't really mesh with the game. Thrusters and sprint work in COD because of the lower TTK and no shields. They don't work in Halo because of the longer TTK and the shields. No one ever argues that they want the game to be Halo 3 again, they argue that they want 343i to take Halo 3 and improve upon it in a way that retains the identity of the franchise while feeling new. Like H2A's multiplayer. That felt new, even though it basically Halo 2 with Halo 4 graphics.
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
Change is good if done right and innovating properly can make things great!
That's exactly what I'm saying. I think the changes that are in Halo 5 are a good thing. Others may not feel the same way, but that's perfectly fine.
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
I dunno, the MCC sold pretty well for a collection of old games. It has 4 different styles of gameplay (okay if you want to classify gameplay by classic Halo vs nu-Halo, then it has 2 styles, but I'm sure CE purists, H2 elitists, and H3 dude bros would argue that they are very different).

Also, your line about CS is so full of crap. PC players like change just as much as anybody else, but they want it done right. They know what the game is and that the way the game is played is the selling factor, so they want the game to be similar to previous CS games, while still being new and refreshing. Hence all of the new weapon additions and maps that weren't in CS 1.6 or CS:S. Similar change can be accomplished with Halo, and it would still be Halo. As it is, most of the changes in Halo 5 seem to be reactionary changes that don't really mesh with the game. Thrusters and sprint work in COD because of the lower TTK and no shields. They don't work in Halo because of the longer TTK and the shields. No one ever argues that they want the game to be Halo 3 again, they argue that they want 343i to take Halo 3 and improve upon it in a way that retains the identity of the franchise while feeling new. Like H2A's multiplayer. That felt new, even though it basically Halo 2 with Halo 4 graphics.
Yea it was a crap line, I don't know anything about PC players haha
Some people like consistency with games, and one some games I like it too. But a game like Halo, I want change, I want something new.
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
I dunno, the MCC sold pretty well for a collection of old games. It has 4 different styles of gameplay (okay if you want to classify gameplay by classic Halo vs nu-Halo, then it has 2 styles, but I'm sure CE purists, H2 elitists, and H3 dude bros would argue that they are very different).

Also, your line about CS is so full of crap. PC players like change just as much as anybody else, but they want it done right. They know what the game is and that the way the game is played is the selling factor, so they want the game to be similar to previous CS games, while still being new and refreshing. Hence all of the new weapon additions and maps that weren't in CS 1.6 or CS:S. Similar change can be accomplished with Halo, and it would still be Halo. As it is, most of the changes in Halo 5 seem to be reactionary changes that don't really mesh with the game. Thrusters and sprint work in COD because of the lower TTK and no shields. They don't work in Halo because of the longer TTK and the shields. No one ever argues that they want the game to be Halo 3 again, they argue that they want 343i to take Halo 3 and improve upon it in a way that retains the identity of the franchise while feeling new. Like H2A's multiplayer. That felt new, even though it basically Halo 2 with Halo 4 graphics.
Yea it was a crap line, I don't know anything about PC players haha
Some people like consistency with games, and one some games I like it too. But a game like Halo, I want change, I want something new.
I feel that all games can use change and they do use change a lot. But they should use that change to improve upon themselves, not take reactionary measures from the rest of the field. If Mortal Kombat started adding guns and tanks to the game, it wouldn't be Mortal Kombat. Similarly, I feel that by adding Thrusters (which I don't mind so much actually) and Spartan Abilities (which I do mind because of its implementation), it changes the identity of Halo from that of a tactical FPS to a twitch shooter in the style of COD and Titanfall.
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
I dunno, the MCC sold pretty well for a collection of old games. It has 4 different styles of gameplay (okay if you want to classify gameplay by classic Halo vs nu-Halo, then it has 2 styles, but I'm sure CE purists, H2 elitists, and H3 dude bros would argue that they are very different).

Also, your line about CS is so full of crap. PC players like change just as much as anybody else, but they want it done right. They know what the game is and that the way the game is played is the selling factor, so they want the game to be similar to previous CS games, while still being new and refreshing. Hence all of the new weapon additions and maps that weren't in CS 1.6 or CS:S. Similar change can be accomplished with Halo, and it would still be Halo. As it is, most of the changes in Halo 5 seem to be reactionary changes that don't really mesh with the game. Thrusters and sprint work in COD because of the lower TTK and no shields. They don't work in Halo because of the longer TTK and the shields. No one ever argues that they want the game to be Halo 3 again, they argue that they want 343i to take Halo 3 and improve upon it in a way that retains the identity of the franchise while feeling new. Like H2A's multiplayer. That felt new, even though it basically Halo 2 with Halo 4 graphics.
Yea it was a crap line, I don't know anything about PC players haha
Some people like consistency with games, and one some games I like it too. But a game like Halo, I want change, I want something new.
I feel that all games can use change and they do use change a lot. But they should use that change to improve upon themselves, not take reactionary measures from the rest of the field. If Mortal Kombat started adding guns and tanks to the game, it wouldn't be Mortal Kombat. Similarly, I feel that by adding Thrusters (which I don't mind so much actually) and Spartan Abilities (which I do mind because of its implementation), it changes the identity of Halo from that of a tactical FPS to a twitch shooter in the style of COD and Titanfall.
That's a totally fine opinion to have. I just think that the Spartan abilities are new thing to the next Halo game, that's it. They're just the new change, they don't take this game away from Halo or anything. Halo 5 feels as much like a Halo game as any previous game has, but that's just me.
Ashes to ashes, man.

With that said, we need to bring back Reach style everything. Including the vehicles.
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
I dunno, the MCC sold pretty well for a collection of old games. It has 4 different styles of gameplay (okay if you want to classify gameplay by classic Halo vs nu-Halo, then it has 2 styles, but I'm sure CE purists, H2 elitists, and H3 dude bros would argue that they are very different).

Also, your line about CS is so full of crap. PC players like change just as much as anybody else, but they want it done right. They know what the game is and that the way the game is played is the selling factor, so they want the game to be similar to previous CS games, while still being new and refreshing. Hence all of the new weapon additions and maps that weren't in CS 1.6 or CS:S. Similar change can be accomplished with Halo, and it would still be Halo. As it is, most of the changes in Halo 5 seem to be reactionary changes that don't really mesh with the game. Thrusters and sprint work in COD because of the lower TTK and no shields. They don't work in Halo because of the longer TTK and the shields. No one ever argues that they want the game to be Halo 3 again, they argue that they want 343i to take Halo 3 and improve upon it in a way that retains the identity of the franchise while feeling new. Like H2A's multiplayer. That felt new, even though it basically Halo 2 with Halo 4 graphics.
Yea it was a crap line, I don't know anything about PC players haha
Some people like consistency with games, and one some games I like it too. But a game like Halo, I want change, I want something new.
I feel that all games can use change and they do use change a lot. But they should use that change to improve upon themselves, not take reactionary measures from the rest of the field. If Mortal Kombat started adding guns and tanks to the game, it wouldn't be Mortal Kombat. Similarly, I feel that by adding Thrusters (which I don't mind so much actually) and Spartan Abilities (which I do mind because of its implementation), it changes the identity of Halo from that of a tactical FPS to a twitch shooter in the style of COD and Titanfall.
That's a totally fine opinion to have. I just think that the Spartan abilities are new thing to the next Halo game, that's it. They're just the new change, they don't take this game away from Halo or anything. Halo 5 feels as much like a Halo game as any previous game has, but that's just me.
Yeah because spartan charging and ground pounding is super skillful and adds such great gameplay to the game....LOL

After reading your posts you seem very childish/naive and spout your crappy opinion everywhere
Shnags wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
I dunno, the MCC sold pretty well for a collection of old games. It has 4 different styles of gameplay (okay if you want to classify gameplay by classic Halo vs nu-Halo, then it has 2 styles, but I'm sure CE purists, H2 elitists, and H3 dude bros would argue that they are very different).

Also, your line about CS is so full of crap. PC players like change just as much as anybody else, but they want it done right. They know what the game is and that the way the game is played is the selling factor, so they want the game to be similar to previous CS games, while still being new and refreshing. Hence all of the new weapon additions and maps that weren't in CS 1.6 or CS:S. Similar change can be accomplished with Halo, and it would still be Halo. As it is, most of the changes in Halo 5 seem to be reactionary changes that don't really mesh with the game. Thrusters and sprint work in COD because of the lower TTK and no shields. They don't work in Halo because of the longer TTK and the shields. No one ever argues that they want the game to be Halo 3 again, they argue that they want 343i to take Halo 3 and improve upon it in a way that retains the identity of the franchise while feeling new. Like H2A's multiplayer. That felt new, even though it basically Halo 2 with Halo 4 graphics.
Yea it was a crap line, I don't know anything about PC players haha
Some people like consistency with games, and one some games I like it too. But a game like Halo, I want change, I want something new.
I feel that all games can use change and they do use change a lot. But they should use that change to improve upon themselves, not take reactionary measures from the rest of the field. If Mortal Kombat started adding guns and tanks to the game, it wouldn't be Mortal Kombat. Similarly, I feel that by adding Thrusters (which I don't mind so much actually) and Spartan Abilities (which I do mind because of its implementation), it changes the identity of Halo from that of a tactical FPS to a twitch shooter in the style of COD and Titanfall.
That's a totally fine opinion to have. I just think that the Spartan abilities are new thing to the next Halo game, that's it. They're just the new change, they don't take this game away from Halo or anything. Halo 5 feels as much like a Halo game as any previous game has, but that's just me.
Yeah because spartan charging and ground pounding is super skillful and adds such great gameplay to the game....LOL

After reading your posts you seem very childish/naive and spout your crappy opinion everywhere
Good lord dude. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others don't. We have different opinions.

No, I actually don't sound childish or naïve, you just hate opinions that oppose your own. Man the irony here is great ;)
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
BADMAGIK wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Zancuran wrote:
Mr Sir 81 wrote:
343 isn't going to go back to anything. They've created a pretty good game. Though a lot needs to be fixed/tweaked/added....
Then explain why it is the worst selling?
Worst selling doesn't always mean bad. For a niche, it sold pretty well.
Well they need to seriously step up their game.
Stop living in the past. Halo isn't the one game to play now a days nor isn't the only triple A title out there.
Funny that you clearly make that assumption, thinking I want Halo 3.5. No clearly what I WANT is Halo to continue and it being the game that can bring people back together. Also for me It is the mostly played game I have as for right now. I have other games sure but i play it among all others.
Lol. You're delusional.

There are tons of people who play the game. Stop coming up with reasons to blindly hate it.
Never said i hated the game, just its direction get your facts straight.
Long standing franchises have to change smart guy. We can't keep playing the same slow gameplay from 15 years ago.

Get over it. Adapt or go play something else and leave the forums. Your toxic attitude is what kills this community.

If this Halo was like the older Halos, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would the majority, plain and simple. And I've been playing Halo since the first day of C.E.
How do you know if the older style wouldnt last? You dont know and never will. We all will never know because 343i are too afraid to take that chance. Not my fault they left out a lot of community features, things that could have been innovated on, a game that brought people together again like Halo did in the past. Halo is nothing more than a shadow of its former self, why you ask, because 343 screwed it up.
I don't think its an issue of fear, its just a good guess.

I know that I don't want to play $60 for a game that I've already played, and many others wouldn't either.

As much as we don't know that the old style wouldn't last, we also don't know that it would, but history shows that it probably wouldn't last.
Then why not add in both sides? That why we can see which might be more popular. Im not saying I want a Halo 3.5, I just want a Halo that everyone can enjoy and say to someone else, hey come get this awesome game. Halo needs to innovate but not within its gameplay mechanics, that didnt need changing but 343 decided to take up on Reach instead of seeing the most profitable Halo (Halo 3) and innovate off that.
How do you mean both sides? As in have two different sets of gameplay mechanics.

I think gameplay mechanics is one of the first things that needs to be innovative, if the mechanics are the same its still just like an old game, but on a new map. That's how I see it.
Add in both Halo's gameplay style from 2-3 and also add in gameplay style of 4-5. Well you might see it as just that but think about other games that have made very slight changes to their series as time went on. CoD has stayed the same for years and changed little bit little and still sold millions, Counter Strike has kept its formula simple and yet it hold more players than Halo 5. Simple is key in my opinion and trying to change/innovate too much is bound to have backlash and negativity towards it.

I find the older Halo's better IMO again but I find Halo 5 lacking in so many ways that it didnt need all that change to stay relevant.
That would be interesting to have 2 totally different game styles, but a game like that wouldn't sell well, I imagine.

Over innovation is bad, I can agree with that. I could argue that CoD is different enough from game to game, but people that don't like CoD, don't like it for that reason; its too similar to the previous game.
Counter Strike is a PC so I feel like those players are a little too....stubborn for any sort of change hahaha

I dunno, change can be good or bad, but I would wager that no change is just as bad.
I dunno, the MCC sold pretty well for a collection of old games. It has 4 different styles of gameplay (okay if you want to classify gameplay by classic Halo vs nu-Halo, then it has 2 styles, but I'm sure CE purists, H2 elitists, and H3 dude bros would argue that they are very different).

Also, your line about CS is so full of crap. PC players like change just as much as anybody else, but they want it done right. They know what the game is and that the way the game is played is the selling factor, so they want the game to be similar to previous CS games, while still being new and refreshing. Hence all of the new weapon additions and maps that weren't in CS 1.6 or CS:S. Similar change can be accomplished with Halo, and it would still be Halo. As it is, most of the changes in Halo 5 seem to be reactionary changes that don't really mesh with the game. Thrusters and sprint work in COD because of the lower TTK and no shields. They don't work in Halo because of the longer TTK and the shields. No one ever argues that they want the game to be Halo 3 again, they argue that they want 343i to take Halo 3 and improve upon it in a way that retains the identity of the franchise while feeling new. Like H2A's multiplayer. That felt new, even though it basically Halo 2 with Halo 4 graphics.
Yea it was a crap line, I don't know anything about PC players haha
Some people like consistency with games, and one some games I like it too. But a game like Halo, I want change, I want something new.
I feel that all games can use change and they do use change a lot. But they should use that change to improve upon themselves, not take reactionary measures from the rest of the field. If Mortal Kombat started adding guns and tanks to the game, it wouldn't be Mortal Kombat. Similarly, I feel that by adding Thrusters (which I don't mind so much actually) and Spartan Abilities (which I do mind because of its implementation), it changes the identity of Halo from that of a tactical FPS to a twitch shooter in the style of COD and Titanfall.
Still fail to see where halo is going into a twitch shooter. Still holds its identity as a longer ttk game, still requires that tactical teamwork, still retains its role where map control is important while holding power weapon control. The fast paced movement isn't much of an excuse or reason cuz so many other games are fast paced, even the older games are fast paced, and in actuality, combat has been pretty much the same even compared to the previous halo games. To me, the definition of a twitch shooter is a fast paced, quick reflexive game with immediate ttk. Halo has only one of those.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 19
  4. 20
  5. ...
  6. 21